Delhi Court July 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 2 of about 62 results (0.022 seconds)Orient Express Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD506(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the Orient Express Co. (P.) Ltd., New Delhi, a company engaged in the business of acting as travel agents, is running a hotel at Khaujraho known as Chandela. This hotel is said to be a five-star delux hotel. The controversy in this appeal centred round the claim made by the assessee for the allowance of investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the new plant and machinery installed by the assessee. We are in this appeal not concerned with the actual computation of the relief claimed except the principle involved. The IAC, who made the assessment, rejected the assessee's claim on the ground that the assessee was running a hotel which is a service industry and not an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture of any article and, therefore, did not qualify as an industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing the investment allowance. The IAC relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Cas...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Gulati and Others Vs. J.L. Birmani
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ770; 28(1985)DLT483; ILR1985Delhi504
H.L. Anand, J. 1. The question for decision, on a reference by one of us, Anand, J. is, if a succeeding Magistrate could issue process in a complaint of which cognizance had earlier been taken and the complainant and/or his preliminary evidence had been examined by his predecessor. 2. The circumstances in which the question arose in the two petitions, in so far as they are necessary for our present purpose, are set out in the referring order of July 10, 1984. The referring order considers at length the rival contentions, the scheme and the provisions of Ss. 6, 16, 26, 35, 190, 192, 202 to 204 and 326 of the Code of Cr.P.C. and justifies an affirmative answer to the question. It also examines the two earlier decisions of this Court in Cri. Rev. 107 of 1973, decided by Rangarajan, J. as he then was, on May 22, 1973, and in Cri. M (M) 446 of 1978, decided by R. N. Aggarwal, J., on October 5, 1978, in both of which an identical question was answered in the negative, on the learned Judges' ...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab National Bank Vs. Surtax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD450(Delhi)
1. These are two cross-appeals, one by the assesses and the other by the department, both directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the surtax assessment for the assessment year 1979-80.2. The assessee is a banking company and the accounting period ended on 31-12-1978. For the purpose of surtax liability, the assessee had claimed before the STO/ITO that the chargeable profits should be computed by treating contingency reserve and foreign exchange fluctuation reserve as reserves and should, therefore, be deducted from the income as per profit and loss account. The ITO, however, did not accept the plea of the assessee and while he allowed the deduction in respect of general reserves, he did not treat contingency reserve, foreign exchange fluctuation reserve and development rebate reserve for the purpose, of computing the chargeable profits of the company.Similarly, for computing the capital of the assessee for working out the statutory deduction the ITO dedu...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushila Devi Tuli Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)19ITD855(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals in respect of the assessment year 1977-78.In the assessee's appeal the question is with regard to the valuation of flat No. 604 in the M.S. Building, known as New Delhi House, 27-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The assessee had entered into an agreement with the builder to purchase the said house and to pay Rs. 1,48,460 therefor. The price was accordingly paid and the possession of the said flat was handed over to the assessee by the said builder. The sale deed in respect of the said flat has, however, not been executed yet. The assessee declared the market value of the said flat in his hand at Rs. 1,90,000, vide his first return, as per the valuation report of an approved valuer. Thereafter he revised the return and declared the value at Rs. 1,53,645, which was the cost of the assessee's flat. As per the assessee the revision was done in terms of the decision in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. NDMC [1980] 122 ITR 700 C) though it was not explained as to ...
Tag this Judgment!Malwa Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT538(Del)
Sunanda Bhandare, J. 1. The petitioner Malwa Sugar Mills Company Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on the business of Sugar Mills at Dhuri District Sangrur, Punjab. Sugar is included as Essential Commodity within the definition of Section 2A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In pursuance powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act the Government of India promulgated the Sugar Control Order, 1966 which came into force from 10th June 1966. By virtue of the said Sugar Control Order the Government of India regulated the production of sugar in the country and under clause (4) thereof the Govt. of India sought to restrict the sale of sugar by producers. By clause (5) the Government of India issued directions regarding production, maintenance of stock, storage and sale of sugar. By a Press Note dated 7th October, 1966 the Govt. of India introduced a partial decontrol of Sugar. Under this Scheme 60 per cent. of the total production of t...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. O.P. Bhargava Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT62
H.C. Goel, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of Shri H.P. Bagchi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated October 25,1983 by which he discharged Mani Madhukar and his wife, Rachna Mani, accused/respondents 2 and 3 in the police challan case as filed by the Karol Bagh police against the two accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 IPC. The prosecution case stated in brief is that the wife of Dr. O.P. Bhargava, complainant, and Rachna Mani, accused No. 2, were known to each other for a couple of years prior to May 1982. They both hail from Jaipur and they also used to meet each other at the television studio where they both used to give some programmes. Dr. O.P. Bhargava, complainant, is a reputed cardiologist of Delhi. Mani Madhukar, accused No. 1 is a writer of Hindi poetry and got recognition for some work of his from the Hindi Sahitya Academy. Some time in the beginning of May 1982, Rachna mani accused told Mrs. Kamla Bhargava that her husband M...
Tag this Judgment!Sabo Devi and ors. Vs. Pritam Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC393
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the widow and mother of Shri Binda Singh, who died as a result of an accident which took place on 12-6-67 at 8.00 a.m. on the main Gandhi Nagar road near Government Higher Secondary f School within the limits of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. On the day of the accident Binda Singh was going form Jheel Kurenja to Delhi on his cycle. Truck No. DLG 8965 driven by Respondent No. 2 (Badam Singh) and owned respondent No. 1 (Pritam Singh) came from behind in a fast speed without any horn. The speeding vehicle knocked down the deceased and ran over the cycle the deceased, causing instantaneous death.2. Dr. S.S. Kaushal P.W. 4 who had conducted the post-mortem examination stated the following injuries on the body of the deceased: (1) Face compressed from side to side. (2) Scattered abrasions all over face, left side neck, chest, left shoulder, left thigh and dorsem of right hand. He also found that all the skull bones were crushed at multiple place...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC17Tri(Delhi)
1. This application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act is by Shri Panna Lal, the appellant in Customs Appeal No. 1557/81 (NRB).2. On 10-12-1977 one Mr. Giovanni Marchetti, a Crew Member of Alitalia flight from Bangkok was detained by the Customs authorities as he was found in possession of various articles including 8.5 Kgs. of gold and 196 wrist watches which he had failed to declare and it was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. A statement was recorded from him. In pursuance thereof the applicant Shri Panna Lal as also one Shri Lalji Kapoor were traced and statements were recorded from them also.On the basis of the said statements and further materials gathered a show cause notice dated 10-3-1978 was issued by the Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi Airport. Replies were sent by these parties and adjudication was held by the Additional Collector in pursuance of which he passed an order dated 19-9-1978 where-under he inter aha imposed penalties of Rs. 50.000/- each ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Lal Chand Anand and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(23)ELT530TriDel
1. During the pendency of some appeals (seven in number), before Special Bench B, a point of law, which was common to all of them; namely, as to which period of limitation would be applicable in a given case for the issuance of notice for recovery of short levy or non-levy demand, was referred for the opinion of a Larger Bench by the concerned Special Bench. The appeals remained pending in the said Bench and the point referred for the opinion of the Larger Bench was decided, along with other points which arose during the hearing before the Larger Bench, by Order dated 7-6-1984.2. No appeals were disposed of by the said Order, which in fact remained pending in the Special Bench, as already noted. The concluding para of the Order only says that points raised and discussed were answered in the manner stated therein. The points so determined by means of the Order under reference were returned to the Bench that had made the reference to the Larger Bench, for disposal of the appeals by them...
Tag this Judgment!Ajanta Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT537(Del)
Sunanda Bhandare, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 3rd May, 1968, 8th January, 1969 and 27th July, 1972 passed by respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 respectively refusing to refund the excise duty paid by the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture of iron and steel products. Between the period March 1966 and August 1967 the petitioner firm manufactured flat products of the thickness between 5 mms. and 10 mms. and of width between 25 mms. and 63 mms. Theses flats were rolled out of duty paid billets purchased from steel plants. Such billets were supplied by the steel plants to the petitioner firm after payment of excise duty at the rate of Rs. 125/- per metric tonne. The case of the petitioner is that the flats of the description mentioned herein above fell under the category of 'bars' vide Indian customs Tariff Guide 8th Edition (published in 1...
Tag this Judgment!